Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures, including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in cyclist fatalities on British roads.

According to provisional road casualty figures published by the Department for Transport, 85 people were killed while riding their bikes in Great Britain in 2022, the lowest number of fatalities since 1993, a drop attributed by the active travel charity
to measures introduced since the Covid-19 pandemic to make the UK’s roads safer.

However, Cycling UK has insisted that more government action and investment is needed to ensure that the 2022 statistics “mark the beginning of a longer-term trend in road casualties for people cycling” and don’t simply become a “statistical
anomaly”.

New analysis from the cycling charity has found that the number of people killed while cycling in England, Scotland, and Wales, per billion miles, also fell by almost a quarter compared to the immediate pre-pandemic years.

Published yesterday, the Department for Transport’s road traffic estimates (link is external) show that the number of miles travelled by people cycling in 2022 totalled 3.9 billion, a 12 percent increase from the average of 3.5 billion miles a year
recorded between 2015 and 2019.

Meanwhile, the 85 cyclists killed in 2022 also represent a 15 percent reduction from an average of 100 fatalities a year during that same pre-pandemic period.

Cycling UK has used these statistics to calculate the rate of people killed while cycling per billion miles travelled – the best method, it says, of ascertaining whether the roads are becoming safer. According to this analysis, 22 cyclists were killed
per billion miles cycled in 2022, compared to an average of 29 in 2015-2019 (a 24 percent reduction), and 27 and 26 in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

Notably, the DfT’s figures also show that the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads fell considerably in 2022. While over 4,400 people were killed or seriously injured while cycling every year between 2015 and 2021, this
number dropped to 4,146 in 2022.

Cycling UK believes that road safety measures introduced throughout 2021 and 2022 are part of the reason for the “significant decline” in cyclists killed or injured in Great Britain.

“These figures prove the tragic death toll on our roads isn’t inevitable,” Cycling UK’s chief executive Sarah Mitchell says. “They show the government could save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of devastating injuries by taking more
action to reduce road danger.

“Proving cause and effect is always difficult, but over the last two years a number of measures have been introduced to make roads safer, such as an updated Highway Code, wider roll out of 20mph zones, and interventions to reduce through traffic in
residential areas. It is likely a combination of these contributed to last year’s reduction in cyclist deaths.”

However, with the Department for Transport currently under scrutiny for its failure to deliver its active travel targets, and with cycling and walking schemes threatened by proposed government cuts, Mitchell argues that more needs to be done to protect
cycling infrastructure and save lives.

“Despite making up less than two percent of all non-motorway traffic on our roads, people cycling are still over-represented in the fatalities and injuries on our roads,” she says.

“Action can make a difference, which is why Cycling UK wants to see the government reverse cuts to cycling and walking infrastructure investment. This infrastructure keeps people safe and saves lives, but the cuts threaten to do exactly the opposite.”

Last month, we reported that the government is facing a legal challenge from a campaign group over its decision to slash investment in walking and cycling in England, with lawyers acting on behalf of the Transport Action Network (TAN) writing to the DfT
seeking a judicial review into the cuts.

TAN claims that the active travel budget cuts bypassed legal processes and risk undermining commitments related to air pollution and the climate emergency.

The cuts, announced in March, were slammed at the time as “a backward move” by the Walking and Cycling Alliance (WACA), who estimated that two thirds of previously promised funding would be lost, making it “impossible” to meet Net Zero and active
travel targets.

As pointed out in Parliament by SNP MP Gavin Newlands a month later, the slash to the active travel budget means that less than £1 per head will be spent in England outside of London, compared to £50 per head in Scotland.

Meanwhile, a damning report published in early June by the National Audit Office found that the Department for Transport is highly unlikely to achieve any of its four goals for active travel by 2025, prompting campaign groups to claim that the government�
��s plans to boost cycling and walking in England are “in tatters” thanks to years of “stop-start” funding.

https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures, including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and
last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in cyclist fatalities on British roads.

Never mind that ‘correlation is not causation’, Cycling UK loses no time in using partial information to push its agenda.

According to provisional road casualty figures published by the
Department for Transport, 85 people were killed while riding their bikes
in Great Britain in 2022, the lowest number of fatalities since 1993, a
drop attributed by the active travel charity to measures introduced since
the Covid-19 pandemic to make the UK’s roads safer.

Unfortunately, Cycling UK are going to have to wait for the detail that
will be in the publication ‘Reported road casualties in Great Britain:
pedal cycle factsheet, 2022’, due in August, to see if their claims have
any foundation.

However, Cycling UK has insisted that more government action and
investment is needed to ensure that the 2022 statistics “mark the
beginning of a longer-term trend in road casualties for people cycling”
and don’t simply become a “statistical anomaly”.

Having made a case based on supposition, Cycling UK is unsurprisingly
pressing for yet more taxpayer money.

New analysis from the cycling charity has found that the number of people killed while cycling in England, Scotland, and Wales, per billion miles,
also fell by almost a quarter compared to the immediate pre-pandemic years.

Published yesterday, the Department for Transport’s road traffic
estimates (link is external) show that the number of miles travelled by people cycling in 2022 totalled 3.9 billion, a 12 percent increase from
the average of 3.5 billion miles a year recorded between 2015 and 2019.

QUOTE Traffic in 2022 was impacted by the travel restrictions that were in place across the country between March 2020 and March 2022 due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Overall traffic levels in 2022 were higher than 2021 but remain below pre-pandemic 2019 levels UNQUOTE

Meanwhile, the 85 cyclists killed in 2022 also represent a 15 percent reduction from an average of 100 fatalities a year during that same pre-pandemic period.

Cycling UK has used these statistics to calculate the rate of people
killed while cycling per billion miles travelled – the best method, it says, of ascertaining whether the roads are becoming safer. According to
this analysis, 22 cyclists were killed per billion miles cycled in 2022, compared to an average of 29 in 2015-2019 (a 24 percent reduction), and
27 and 26 in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

Notably, the DfT’s figures also show that the number of cyclists killed
or seriously injured on Britain’s roads fell considerably in 2022. While over 4,400 people were killed or seriously injured while cycling every
year between 2015 and 2021, this number dropped to 4,146 in 2022.

A fall in cyclist KSI from 4400 to 4146 is some 6%, rather lower than the
15% reduction in deaths. The reasons for this should be investigated, but
will necessarily have to wait for the final data to be published.

Cycling UK believes that road safety measures introduced throughout 2021
and 2022 are part of the reason for the “significant decline” in cyclists killed or injured in Great Britain.

Oh! The fall in cyclists deaths might be significant, but the KSI figures
are far less convincing.

“These figures prove the tragic death toll on our roads isn’t inevitable,” Cycling UK’s chief executive Sarah Mitchell says. “They show
the government could save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of devastating injuries by taking more action to reduce road danger.

Road danger? Try Holland as an exemplar of carnage.

“Proving cause and effect is always difficult

That’s what I said above, in different words.

but over the last two years a number of measures have been introduced to
make roads safer, such as an updated Highway Code, wider roll out of
20mph zones, and interventions to reduce through traffic in residential areas. It is likely a combination of these contributed to last year’s reduction in cyclist deaths.”

Is it likely? Correlation is not causation…

However, with the Department for Transport currently under scrutiny for
its failure to deliver its active travel targets, and with cycling and walking schemes threatened by proposed government cuts, Mitchell argues
that more needs to be done to protect cycling infrastructure and save lives.

“Despite making up less than two percent of all non-motorway traffic on
our roads, people cycling are still over-represented in the fatalities
and injuries on our roads,” she says.

“Action can make a difference, which is why Cycling UK wants to see the government reverse cuts to cycling and walking infrastructure investment. This infrastructure keeps people safe and saves lives, but the cuts
threaten to do exactly the opposite.”

All quite predictable, of course.

Last month, we reported that the government is facing a legal challenge
from a campaign group over its decision to slash investment in walking
and cycling in England, with lawyers acting on behalf of the Transport
Action Network (TAN) writing to the DfT seeking a judicial review into the cuts.

TAN claims that the active travel budget cuts bypassed legal processes
and risk undermining commitments related to air pollution and the climate emergency.

The cuts, announced in March, were slammed at the time as “a backward move” by the Walking and Cycling Alliance (WACA), who estimated that two thirds of previously promised funding would be lost, making it “impossible” to meet Net Zero and active travel targets.

As pointed out in Parliament by SNP MP Gavin Newlands a month later, the slash to the active travel budget means that less than £1 per head will
be spent in England outside of London, compared to £50 per head in Scotland.

Go and live in Scotland, if it’s that wonderful.

Meanwhile, a damning report published in early June by the National Audit Office found that the Department for Transport is highly unlikely to
achieve any of its four goals for active travel by 2025, prompting
campaign groups to claim that the government’s plans to boost cycling and walking in England are “in tatters” thanks to years of “stop-start” funding.

https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

QUOTE: Published yesterday, the Department for Transport’s road traffic estimates (link is external) show that the number of miles travelled by people cycling in 2022 totalled 3.9 billion, a 12 percent increase from the average of 3.5 billion miles a
year recorded between 2015 and 2019.

Meanwhile, the 85 cyclists killed in 2022 also represent a 15 percent reduction from an average of 100 fatalities a year during that same pre-pandemic period. ENDS

AKA "SAFETY IN NUMBERS".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures, including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and
last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in cyclist fatalities on British roads.

A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as they don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle mileage was considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30% to 141. What was
the reason for that?

https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

QUOTE: Published yesterday, the Department for Transport’s road traffic estimates (link is external) show that the number of miles travelled by people cycling in 2022 totalled 3.9 billion, a 12 percent increase from
the average of 3.5 billion miles a year recorded between 2015 and 2019.

Meanwhile, the 85 cyclists killed in 2022 also represent a 15 percent reduction from an average of 100 fatalities a year during that same pre-pandemic period. ENDS

AKA "SAFETY IN NUMBERS".

Always go for evidence-based conclusions.

A quick search will reveal that cyclists KSI has fallen every year since
2014, apart from a tiny rise during lockdown, when 141 cyclists were killed during the 2020 surge in cycling at a time when motor traffic was
significantly reduced. So the question is, why should this current figure
be due to ‘safety in numbers’, because it did not apply during 2020?

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the
frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the
number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published
analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions
rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and two time series) to compare
the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies
inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of vary-
ing size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become
more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likeli-
hood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in
the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the
human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk
or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effec-
tive route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/Safety_in_Numbers_JacobsenPaper.pdf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people
walking or bicycling and the
frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists.

The common wisdom holds that the
number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling.

What defines ‘common wisdom’?

However, three published
analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions
rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Therefore ‘common wisdom’ is worthless.

Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level
and two time series) to compare
the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in
collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies
inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is
consistent across communities of vary-
ing size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

So the more that I, as a ‘given person’, walk, the less chance there is that I will be struck by a motor-vehicle?

That’s absurd. It implies that staying at home and not going out at all is the most dangerous.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
people walking and bicycling become
more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior
of motorists controls the likeli-
hood of collisions with people walking and bicycling.

Have you ever heard of piling supposition upon supposition, to arrive at
the answer you want?

It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in
the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the
human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people
walking and bicycling.

There is a need to perform a proper analysis, and one that doesn’t use
terms such as ‘unlikely’.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk
or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effec-
tive route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/Safety_in_Numbers_JacobsenPaper.pdf

To draw two curves through the hugely scattered points on the ‘Danish Cities’ is laughable.

To conflate Californian cities and European countries is highly
questionable.

There is no UK data after 1999.

Paper published 2003. Have there been any changes in the pedestrian,
cycling, or motor-vehicle worlds in the last 20 years? [Rhetorical
question]

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

There are many studies, facts and figures that seem to support the concept of SIN. Impressive
figures from Copenhagen between 1995 and 2006 (where cycling increased by 44%), show a 60%
drop in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured. Similarly, in The Netherlands between 1980
and 2005, where cycling increased by 45%, cycling fatalities decreased by 58%.

These results are notable because they show a real fall in the number of cyclists killed and injured, not just the rate.
CyclingUK state, in their Safety in Numbers report, ‘research suggests that a doubling of cycling
would lead to a reduction in the risk of cycling by around a third’. The same report also presents a chart (Figure 1) with cycling levels and cyclists killed across EU countries. It clearly indicates that countries with high cycling levels pose a lower
risk to
cyclists.

SEE FIG NR ONE:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1E3O9MXoAEuUbO?format=jpg&name=medium

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 15/07/2023 12:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

There are many studies, facts and figures that seem to support the concept of SIN.

Indeed.

And far too many of them are committed by chav-cyclists against other road-users, especially against pedestrians.

They need to confess their sins and ask for forgiveness.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

On 15/07/2023 09:05 am, Spike wrote:

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures, >>> including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and
last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in >>> cyclist fatalities on British roads.

A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as they >> don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle mileage was
considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30% to 141. What was >> the reason for that?

https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

"A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as
they don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle mileage was considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30%
to 141. What was the reason for that?"

<FX: Tumbleweeds rolling by on a just-audible breeze>

Exactly. BTW, the rise in cyclist deaths was 40%, from 101 the year before
to 141.


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 15/07/2023 09:05 am, Spike wrote:

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures,
including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and
last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in
cyclist fatalities on British roads.

A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as they don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle mileage was considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30% to 141. What was the reason for that?

https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

"A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as
they don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle
mileage was considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30%
to 141. What was the reason for that?"

<FX: Tumbleweeds rolling by on a just-audible breeze>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

CyclingUK state, in their Safety in Numbers report, ‘research suggests
that a doubling of cycling would lead to a reduction in the risk of
cycling by around a third’.

Another way of presenting that data is to say that ‘the more cyclists there are, the more cyclist deaths there will be’.

Note that 1 in 6 of cyclist deaths are single-vehicle accidents, and the
herd approach to cycling dies not suggest that will change.

SEE FIG NR ONE:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1E3O9MXoAEuUbO?format=jpg&name=medium

So how does that align with the recent report from Cycling UK, that in
effect states that the UK’s per-bn death rate is the same as that of the Netherlands, at 22/bn miles. Are you claiming that Cycling UK is fibbing?

UK 85 deaths in 3.9bn miles
Netherlands 200 deaths in 9.3bn miles

Always go for the *evidence*.



--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Since 2009, further research (by Bhatia et al, Road Safety Analysis, Aldred et al, Fyhri et al and Elvik et al) has broadly re-affirmed the Safety in numbers theory, namely that the number of people cycling and the safety of cycle use are
correlated.

Indeed, the results of a large Ipsos survey conducted in 28 countries around the globe in 2022 suggest that the safer people feel, the more they cycle.

The Netherlands did far better than any other country – only 14% of respondents agreed that cycling from one place to another in their area was too dangerous, while 45% used their bikes as their primary mode of transport for a 2km/1 mile distance. The
results for Great Britain were very different: 57% and 6% respectively.

It is unclear from the statistical analyses, however, whether increased cycle use results in improved cycle safety, or the other way round. Questions therefore remain about whether this is a causal relationship and, if so, in which direction.

Cycling UK suspects that the relationship probably works in both directions, though we recognise that this isn’t yet proven.

In other words, it seems very likely to us that creating safer cycling conditions will result in more people cycling, or doing so for more of their journeys, and that this increase can also be expected to improve cycle safety for the reasons we put
forward in the report:

The more people there are cycling in a given town, region or country, the more accustomed drivers are to interacting safely with cyclists
The drivers themselves are also more likely to cycle for some of their journeys, and thus to understand the cyclists’ perspective
Finally, increased cycle use will create greater pressure for increased investment in safe cycling conditions, as the ‘cycling vote’ gets stronger

Hence the relationship between ‘more’ and ‘safer’ cycling may well become self-reinforcing, as the safety in numbers effect grows stronger.

Cycling UK is still urging public bodies to measure the risk of a cycling casualty (or a serious or fatal casualty) per 100,000 trips or per million km, or similar (that is, a rate-based indicator).

When public bodies aim merely to reduce the number of cyclist casualties, this creates a perverse incentive simply to reduce cycle use, instead of increasing it – this makes no sense at all, given the health and environmental benefits of higher levels
of cycling.

More and safer cycling can, and should, go hand in hand.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Since 2009, further research (by Bhatia et al, Road Safety Analysis, Aldred et al, Fyhri et al and Elvik et al) has broadly re-affirmed the Safety in numbers theory, namely that the number of
people cycling and the safety of cycle use are correlated.

‘Broadly reaffirmed’ means that the two things (‘numbers of people cycling’
and ‘safety of cycle use’ are in fact not that well correlated statistically.

Indeed, the results of a large Ipsos survey conducted in 28 countries
around the globe in 2022 suggest that the safer people feel, the more they cycle.

Note, however, that the use of the word ‘suggests’ might indicate a poor correlation.

The Netherlands did far better than any other country – only 14% of respondents agreed that cycling from one place to another in their area
was too dangerous, while 45% used their bikes as their primary mode of transport for a 2km/1 mile distance. The results for Great Britain were
very different: 57% and 6% respectively.

And yet on a deaths per-billion-mile basis, the UK and the Netherlands are equal!

So it’s down to individual perception.

It is unclear from the statistical analyses, however, whether increased
cycle use results in improved cycle safety, or the other way round.
Questions therefore remain about whether this is a causal relationship
and, if so, in which direction.

Which is pretty much what I have been saying.

Cycling UK suspects that the relationship probably works in both
directions, though we recognise that this isn’t yet proven.

Winding their necks in a bit?

In other words, it seems very likely to us that creating safer cycling conditions will result in more people cycling, or doing so for more of
their journeys, and that this increase can also be expected to improve
cycle safety for the reasons we put forward in the report:

Considering the caveats concerning the correlation, described above as ‘broadly reaffirmed’ and ‘suggests’, implies that Cycling UK are now being
more cautious, after their initial enthusiasm and subsequent plea for more taxpayer money to be spent.

The more people there are cycling in a given town, region or country,
the more accustomed drivers are to interacting safely with cyclists
The drivers themselves are also more likely to cycle for some of
their journeys, and thus to understand the cyclists’ perspective
Finally, increased cycle use will create greater pressure for
increased investment in safe cycling conditions, as the ‘cycling vote’ gets stronger

Hence the relationship between ‘more’ and ‘safer’ cycling may well become
self-reinforcing, as the safety in numbers effect grows stronger.

Perhaps the cavalier, brusque, rude, self-centred, grasping exhibitionism
of cyclists might make things worse rather than better.

Cycling UK is still urging public bodies to measure the risk of a cycling casualty (or a serious or fatal casualty) per 100,000 trips or per
million km, or similar (that is, a rate-based indicator).

As I keep saying, follow the evidence.

When public bodies aim merely to reduce the number of cyclist casualties, this creates a perverse incentive simply to reduce cycle use, instead of increasing it – this makes no sense at all, given the health and environmental benefits of higher levels of cycling.

But public bodies are only doing what cyclists demand!

See a vigil near you, and note the strident demands that accompany it.

More and safer cycling can, and should, go hand in hand.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

If you have ever done a group bike ride or just ridden a city street where bikes outnumber cars, you know the feeling of safety and increased visibility from sharing the road with lots of bikes. A new study from the Department of Safety and the
Environment Institute of Transport Economics in Oslo, Norway, gives us the data to back that up.

Unlike other studies of the correlation between increases in biking and bike safety, this research was able to control for other factors affecting safety. It used seasonal variations in bike ridership at fixed locations to determine safety in numbers.
Notably, the study counted instances of car drivers failing to see bike riders and near-misses that didn’t result in collisions. This is critical because, while collisions between bikes and cars may be infrequent, daily near-misses create a justifiable
sense of danger among bike riders.

The study found that, as the cycling season progressed and other road users expected to encounter bikes on the road, there were fewer near-misses. The more bikes there were, the more drivers saw bikes and were able to coexist safely with riders.

Next time you’re in a local planning meeting and someone says that creating facilities that encourage biking will endanger people who bike, you can cite this study. It’s great to have concrete evidence that the more people ride bikes, the safer all
bike riders are on the streets.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

If you have ever done a group bike ride or just ridden a city street
where bikes outnumber cars, you know the feeling of safety and increased visibility from sharing the road with lots of bikes. A new study from the Department of Safety and the Environment Institute of Transport Economics
in Oslo, Norway, gives us the data to back that up.

Unlike other studies of the correlation between increases in biking and
bike safety, this research was able to control for other factors
affecting safety. It used seasonal variations in bike ridership at fixed locations to determine safety in numbers. Notably, the study counted instances of car drivers failing to see bike riders and near-misses that didn’t result in collisions. This is critical because, while collisions between bikes and cars may be infrequent, daily near-misses create a justifiable sense of danger among bike riders.

As the report found that “…collisions between bikes and cars may be infrequent”, this whole issue can be kicked into touch by deploying the cyclist’s favourite argument that “it’s only a handful, why bother”.

The study found that, as the cycling season progressed and other road
users expected to encounter bikes on the road, there were fewer
near-misses. The more bikes there were, the more drivers saw bikes and
were able to coexist safely with riders.

Next time you’re in a local planning meeting and someone says that
creating facilities that encourage biking will endanger people who bike,
you can cite this study. It’s great to have concrete evidence that the
more people ride bikes, the safer all bike riders are on the streets.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It may also be the case that safety and the number of kilometers ridden are linked in a causal loop. The safer cycling is, the more people are likely to cycle, and the more people cycle, the more opportunity there is for awareness, expectancy, collective
vigilance or knowledgeable leaders to have an effect in reducing fatal accidents.

The Hovenring in the Netherlands is the world’s first suspension bridge designed to allow cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross a busy highway intersection.

Another factor that almost certainly plays a role in both increasing the number of kilometers ridden and in reducing fatalities is the presence of a well-developed cycling infrastructure. The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, the three countries with
the best fatalities to kilometers ridden ratios shown in the graph, also have exceptionally well developed cycling infrastructures. The Netherlands and Denmark are especially notable in this regard. The United States, on the other hand, has generally
lagged behind the rest of the developed world in building well-designed and well-maintained cycling infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the more people are likely to use it to cycle safely.

There is an additional factor to consider that is highlighted by the Netherlands which has by far the lowest ratio of fatalities to kilometers traveled of any of the countries shown in the graph. In addition to having an excellent cycling infrastructure,
the Netherlands has a long-established cycling culture. As early as 1911 the Netherlands had more bicycles per capita than any other European country. When privately-owned cars became more affordable after Word War II, cycling became less popular as a
means of transportation. As the safety in numbers effect would lead you to expect, this was accompanied by an increase in cycling fatalities. During the 1970s widespread demonstrations took place in the Netherlands protesting the number of child cyclists
who were killed on the road.

The government responded by restricting the use of motorized vehicles in cities and towns, building cycling infrastructure, and embarking on a program of safety education for both cyclists and drivers that placed the Netherlands at the forefront of
countries that make serious efforts to incorporate cycling into people’s daily lives. Children in the Netherlands are taught how to cycle safely from a very young age; adults are tested on their ability to share the road with cyclists as part of the
process of getting a Dutch driver’s license.

According to a press release from the Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, in 2004 the Netherlands was the only European country in which there were more bikes than people, and in 2007 26% of all trips made in the
Netherlands were made by bike. As a society the Netherlands has embraced a culture of cycling and this has played an important role in producing both the very large number of kilometers traveled by bike per inhabitant and the very low number of cycling
fatalities shown in the graph.

Any or all of these factors – a strong social and cultural history of cycling, the presence of an excellent cycling infrastructure, driver awareness and expectation, cyclist vigilance and leadership – may have a role to play in explaining the safety
in numbers effect. The negative correlation between fatalities and the number of kilometers ridden is simple and easy to see, the causal factors that produce this correlation are complex and difficult to tease apart.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

It may also be the case that safety and the number of kilometers ridden
are linked in a causal loop. The safer cycling is, the more people are
likely to cycle, and the more people cycle, the more opportunity there is
for awareness, expectancy, collective vigilance or knowledgeable leaders
to have an effect in reducing fatal accidents.

The Hovenring in the Netherlands is the world’s first suspension bridge designed to allow cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross a busy highway intersection.

With an annual toll if 200 cyclists killed each year on Holland’s roads, in
a population of only 17 million, holding them up as an example of how to do things could be counter-productive.

Another factor that almost certainly plays a role in both increasing the number of kilometers ridden and in reducing fatalities is the presence of
a well-developed cycling infrastructure. The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, the three countries with the best fatalities to kilometers
ridden ratios shown in the graph, also have exceptionally well developed cycling infrastructures. The Netherlands and Denmark are especially
notable in this regard. The United States, on the other hand, has
generally lagged behind the rest of the developed world in building well-designed and well-maintained cycling infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the more people are likely to use it to cycle safely.

But 200 Dutch cyclists die each year! In a population of 17 million!

There is an additional factor to consider that is highlighted by the Netherlands which has by far the lowest ratio of fatalities to kilometers traveled of any of the countries shown in the graph. In addition to
having an excellent cycling infrastructure, the Netherlands has a long-established cycling culture. As early as 1911 the Netherlands had
more bicycles per capita than any other European country. When privately-owned cars became more affordable after Word War II, cycling
became less popular as a means of transportation. As the safety in
numbers effect would lead you to expect, this was accompanied by an
increase in cycling fatalities. During the 1970s widespread
demonstrations took place in the Netherlands protesting the number of
child cyclists who were killed on the road.

The government responded by restricting the use of motorized vehicles in cities and towns, building cycling infrastructure, and embarking on a
program of safety education for both cyclists and drivers that placed the Netherlands at the forefront of countries that make serious efforts to incorporate cycling into people’s daily lives. Children in the
Netherlands are taught how to cycle safely from a very young age; adults
are tested on their ability to share the road with cyclists as part of
the process of getting a Dutch driver’s license.

Would that cyclists were tested on their ability to share the road as part
of cyclist testing and training.

According to a press release from the Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, in 2004 the Netherlands was the only European country in which there were more bikes than people, and in 2007
26% of all trips made in the Netherlands were made by bike. As a society
the Netherlands has embraced a culture of cycling and this has played an important role in producing both the very large number of kilometers
traveled by bike per inhabitant and the very low number of cycling
fatalities shown in the graph.

22 per billion miles, same as the UK.

Any or all of these factors – a strong social and cultural history of cycling, the presence of an excellent cycling infrastructure, driver awareness and expectation, cyclist vigilance and leadership – may have a role to play in explaining the safety in numbers effect. The negative correlation between fatalities and the number of kilometers ridden is
simple and easy to see, the causal factors that produce this correlation
are complex and difficult to tease apart.

UK: 22 cyclist deaths per billion miles
Holland: 22 cyclist deaths per billion miles

Where is this negative correlation? It’s a pipe dream.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

That this House acknowledges the evidence that cyclists gain from safety in numbers, in other words cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are; welcomes the target in the Government's draft Road Safety Strategy to halve the risks of cycling within 10
years; believes that this target can best be met by also aiming for substantial increases in cycle use in order to maximise the safety in numbers effect, thereby also benefiting health, communities, the economy and the environment; urges that the Road
Safety Strategy should tackle the fears which deter people from cycling, such as traffic speeds, irresponsible driving, hostile roads and junctions and lorries; and calls for cycle training to be made available to people of all ages so as to achieve more
as well as safer cycling.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/38595/safety-in-numbers-for-cyclists

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Stand by for some virtue signalling from someone not working from the evidence…

The suggestion of safety training for cyclists is a very good idea.

That this House acknowledges the evidence that cyclists gain from safety
in numbers, in other words cycling gets safer the more cyclists there
are; welcomes the target in the Government's draft Road Safety Strategy
to halve the risks of cycling within 10 years; believes that this target
can best be met by also aiming for substantial increases in cycle use in order to maximise the safety in numbers effect, thereby also benefiting health, communities, the economy and the environment; urges that the Road Safety Strategy should tackle the fears which deter people from cycling,
such as traffic speeds, irresponsible driving, hostile roads and
junctions and lorries; and calls for cycle training to be made available
to people of all ages so as to achieve more as well as safer cycling.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/38595/safety-in-numbers-for-cyclists

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The number of cyclists on the road quadrupled in San Jose California between 2005 and 2008. You'd maybe expect a quadrupling in the number of cyclist fatalities as well, especially since all of those new cyclists are inexperienced and maybe tend to crash
more. We see about two to six cyclist fatalities each year in all of Santa Clara County (which encompasses sevens time the area of the city of San Jose) In spite of the huge and visible increase in bikes in San Jose and environs.... there wasn't a
corresponding increase in cyclist fatalities.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The more people cycle, the safer it is for each individual cyclist. In places with high levels of cycling, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, the risk for cyclists is reduced because drivers are more aware of cyclists and are more likely to be cyclists
themselves. With that comes a greater drive to improve conditions for cyclists – through better infrastructure and lower speeds.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

The more people cycle, the safer it is for each individual cyclist. In
places with high levels of cycling, such as the Netherlands and Denmark,
the risk for cyclists is reduced because drivers are more aware of
cyclists and are more likely to be cyclists themselves. With that comes a greater drive to improve conditions for cyclists – through better infrastructure and lower speeds.

Not so.

UK 22 cyclist deaths per bn miles
Holland 22 cyclist deaths per bn miles

Holland has a huge amount of cycling infra, harsh conditions for drivers,
huge numbers cycling, and the death rate is no better than the UK!

Explain that one…if you can.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

The number of cyclists on the road quadrupled in San Jose California
between 2005 and 2008. You'd maybe expect a quadrupling in the number of cyclist fatalities as well, especially since all of those new cyclists
are inexperienced and maybe tend to crash more. We see about two to six cyclist fatalities each year in all of Santa Clara County (which
encompasses sevens time the area of the city of San Jose) In spite of the huge and visible increase in bikes in San Jose and environs.... there
wasn't a corresponding increase in cyclist fatalities.

It would be interesting to know how many of those two to six cyclist
fatalities were single-vehicle accidents.

Also, what happened to the numbers of cyclists between 2008 and whenever
this undated and unattributed item was written?

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

During last year’s transit strike in Philadelphia, bike ridership boomed. That likely made streets safer for cyclists. In U.S. cities, there are a
lot more people out bicycling than just a few years ago. You might
reasonably think that the bicycle crash rate would skyrocket as more
people, from wobbly new riders to the outright safety-averse, take to the streets on two wheels.

It’s a fine, common-sense assumption — that happens to be wrong.

So what’s the Philadelphia cyclist death rate before and after the strike,
in deaths per bn miles?

Research has been steadily showing, actually, that the more people are
out there riding bicycles, the safer bicycling becomes. As ridership goes
up, crash rates stay flat. It’s happening in Portland (see page 11 of
this report [PDF]). It’s happening in New York City.

Much of the ridership increase is due to cities’ investments in bicycle-specific infrastructure. But the efficacy of that infrastructure
for safety is often questioned. And there’s one theory — based on a growing body of data — that suggests that a few painted lines on the
road, bike racks, and traffic lights form only part of the safety
equation. And maybe a smaller part than we tend to assume.

The phenomenon, dubbed “safety in numbers,” was first identified in 2003, in an academic paper by public health researcher Peter Jacobsen [PDF].
After being asked by officials in Pasadena, Calif., if their city “was a dangerous place to bicycle,” Jacobsen began looking at crash data from various communities where bicycle ridership had fluctuated over time.

What he found surprised him: The number of crashes involving bikes
correlated with the number of riders in a community. As ridership
fluctuated, so did the crash rate. More riders, fewer crashes; fewer riders, more crashes.

This happened too abruptly, Jacobsen decided, to be caused by slow-moving factors like infrastructure development and cultural change. Bicycling becomes safer when the number of riders increases, he concluded, at least
in part because the number of riders increases.

The inverse happens, as well. One data set Jacobsen looked at covered 49 years of biking history in the United Kingdom. Those numbers showed that cycling became safer during the oil crisis of the 1970s, caused by the
OPEC oil embargo. Once the crisis ended, both ridership and safety dropped.

This all must sound terribly wonky. Actually, it’s been revolutionary.

The idea of Safety in Numbers has slowly built up steam in traffic safety circles since Jacobsen introduced it. Supporting data continues to
quietly (and sometimes dramatically) roll in from around the world, influencing mainly traffic engineers and planners who are trying to
figure out how to improve bicycle safety.

Bicycle safety is often seen in a sort of vacuum. Helmets tend to
dominate the conversation, with visibility — lights and bright clothing — taking a close second. More sophisticated conversations get deep into infrastructure: Which is better, sharrows, bike lanes, or separated cycle tracks? We discuss educating cyclists in defensive riding techniques and
the rules of the road.

These are all good and important efforts. The problem is what’s missing. Here’s the core of Jacobsen’s analysis, from the 2003 “Safety in Numbers” report:

Whose behavior changes, the motorist’s or that of the people walking and bicycling? It seems unlikely that people walking or bicycling obey traffic laws more or defer to motorists more in societies or time periods with greater walking and bicycling. Indeed it seems less likely. … Adaptation in motorist behavior seems more plausible.

So why might this be the case?

When there is a serious bicycle crash, it almost always involves someone driving a car. There are any number of ways drivers become involved in
these crashes, primarily involving speed, turning, and the myriad distractions that are common behind the wheel.

But when there are a lot of bicyclists on the road, according to this
theory, drivers take notice. They become more attentive, slow down, pass
more cautiously, double-check their blind spots, expect the unexpected.
They sense that the road has become a more complicated place, and adjust their behavior accordingly. As a result, the road becomes safer, presumably for everyone.

Safety in numbers is an important idea that has shifted the way planners
and engineers think about bicycle safety. But it won’t be the final word. We will doubtless see this idea bandied back and forth for some time, especially as academic interest in bicycling and walking increases. As
data improves we’ll likely see a more complex relationship emerge among ridership, safety, infrastructure, laws, and culture.

Whatever the variables, as Jacobsen told me in a requisitely wonky email, “The bigger SIN story is that those cities /countries that have
encouraged bicycling have been rewarded with more trips by bike, and not
just a non-linear increase in injuries, but a decrease in injuries.”

And the Dutch data is…

That’s huge. Safety in numbers will prove over time, I suspect, to be the first major theory based on objective data that can break down the double standard we all pedal under. Jacobsen’s research calls into question the foundation of a system in which the convenience of driving is exalted
above the basic safety and mobility of people walking and bicycling.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

During last year’s transit strike in Philadelphia, bike ridership boomed. That likely made streets safer for cyclists. In U.S. cities, there are a lot more people out bicycling than just a few years ago. You might reasonably think that the bicycle
crash rate would skyrocket as more people, from wobbly new riders to the outright safety-averse, take to the streets on two wheels.

It’s a fine, common-sense assumption — that happens to be wrong.

Research has been steadily showing, actually, that the more people are out there riding bicycles, the safer bicycling becomes. As ridership goes up, crash rates stay flat. It’s happening in Portland (see page 11 of this report [PDF]). It’s happening
in New York City.

Much of the ridership increase is due to cities’ investments in bicycle-specific infrastructure. But the efficacy of that infrastructure for safety is often questioned. And there’s one theory — based on a growing body of data — that suggests that
a few painted lines on the road, bike racks, and traffic lights form only part of the safety equation. And maybe a smaller part than we tend to assume.

The phenomenon, dubbed “safety in numbers,” was first identified in 2003, in an academic paper by public health researcher Peter Jacobsen [PDF]. After being asked by officials in Pasadena, Calif., if their city “was a dangerous place to bicycle,”
Jacobsen began looking at crash data from various communities where bicycle ridership had fluctuated over time.

What he found surprised him: The number of crashes involving bikes correlated with the number of riders in a community. As ridership fluctuated, so did the crash rate. More riders, fewer crashes; fewer riders, more crashes.

This happened too abruptly, Jacobsen decided, to be caused by slow-moving factors like infrastructure development and cultural change. Bicycling becomes safer when the number of riders increases, he concluded, at least in part because the number of
riders increases.

The inverse happens, as well. One data set Jacobsen looked at covered 49 years of biking history in the United Kingdom. Those numbers showed that cycling became safer during the oil crisis of the 1970s, caused by the OPEC oil embargo. Once the crisis
ended, both ridership and safety dropped.

This all must sound terribly wonky. Actually, it’s been revolutionary.

The idea of Safety in Numbers has slowly built up steam in traffic safety circles since Jacobsen introduced it. Supporting data continues to quietly (and sometimes dramatically) roll in from around the world, influencing mainly traffic engineers and
planners who are trying to figure out how to improve bicycle safety.

Bicycle safety is often seen in a sort of vacuum. Helmets tend to dominate the conversation, with visibility — lights and bright clothing — taking a close second. More sophisticated conversations get deep into infrastructure: Which is better,
sharrows, bike lanes, or separated cycle tracks? We discuss educating cyclists in defensive riding techniques and the rules of the road.

These are all good and important efforts. The problem is what’s missing. Here’s the core of Jacobsen’s analysis, from the 2003 “Safety in Numbers” report:

Whose behavior changes, the motorist’s or that of the people walking and bicycling? It seems unlikely that people walking or bicycling obey traffic laws more or defer to motorists more in societies or time periods with greater walking and bicycling.
Indeed it seems less likely. … Adaptation in motorist behavior seems more plausible.

So why might this be the case?

When there is a serious bicycle crash, it almost always involves someone driving a car. There are any number of ways drivers become involved in these crashes, primarily involving speed, turning, and the myriad distractions that are common behind the
wheel.

But when there are a lot of bicyclists on the road, according to this theory, drivers take notice. They become more attentive, slow down, pass more cautiously, double-check their blind spots, expect the unexpected. They sense that the road has become a
more complicated place, and adjust their behavior accordingly. As a result, the road becomes safer, presumably for everyone.

Safety in numbers is an important idea that has shifted the way planners and engineers think about bicycle safety. But it won’t be the final word. We will doubtless see this idea bandied back and forth for some time, especially as academic interest in
bicycling and walking increases. As data improves we’ll likely see a more complex relationship emerge among ridership, safety, infrastructure, laws, and culture.

Whatever the variables, as Jacobsen told me in a requisitely wonky email, “The bigger SIN story is that those cities /countries that have encouraged bicycling have been rewarded with more trips by bike, and not just a non-linear increase in injuries,
but a decrease in injuries.”

That’s huge. Safety in numbers will prove over time, I suspect, to be the first major theory based on objective data that can break down the double standard we all pedal under. Jacobsen’s research calls into question the foundation of a system in
which the convenience of driving is exalted above the basic safety and mobility of people walking and bicycling.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Countries in Europe with high levels of cycle use tend to be less risky for cyclists. In Denmark, people cycle over 900 kilometres a year and it is a far safer country to cycle in than Portugal, where barely 30 km is covered by each person by bike
annually.

Clearly, there is a correlation here between distance cycled, or number of cycling trips, and safety. That much is undeniable. But are we so clear about the the direction in which the correlation runs? The main thrust of the CTC argument seems to be
based on the assumption that an increase in safety will arise from a greater numbers of cyclists making trips. In their words

Cycling gets safer the more people do it.

I think this is generally true. More people cycling should mean more awareness of cyclists, and so the averaged risk to a given cyclist will probably decrease.

But there is an alternative explanation that could lie behind the correlation exhibited in that graph, that the CTC don’t seem to focus on. Namely, that more people will cycle when they feel safe. Or, to invert the CTC slogan,

More people cycle when it gets safer.

This gives us two possible interpretations for the data point for the Netherlands in the graph above.

1) Dutch cyclists are safe, because the Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot.

2) The Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot, because they feel (or are) safe.

Likewise, for the UK –

1) British cyclists are not as safe as their Dutch counterparts because, unlike the Dutch, we do not cycle a lot.

2) The British, as a nation, do not cycle a lot, because they are not (or do not feel) safe.

To be clear, I don’t think these two interpretations of the correlation are mutually exclusive. There is probably a great deal of interplay between them. But it is interesting how the second interpretation figures so little in the conventional
explanations of the ‘Safety In Numbers’ effect.

There are now significant numbers of cyclists at peak commuting hours on arterial roads in and out of London – the ‘Superhighways’ seem to have had the effect of concentrating cyclists’ movements on these roads. I suspect that this increase in
numbers has indeed led to a decrease in the average cyclist’s exposure to risk. Nevertheless, the road environment doesn’t necessarily feel any safer for a cyclist, simply because of the greater numbers. And I think that is quite important if we are
ever going to get the ‘numbers’ the CTC talk about.

For instance.

Eight cyclists are visible in this short clip, yet this seems (to me, at least) to be a deeply hostile and unpleasant environment to cycle in. All the regular motorists in this clip probably encounter hundreds of cyclists on a day-to-day basis, so they
are certainly ‘aware’ of them. But the general attitude exhibited seems to be one of dangerous complacency, rather than consideration. They are used to cyclists – but only as objects they need to get past as quickly as possible.

Now, to be fair, the CTC do stress the need to make the road environment more welcoming and safe for cyclists. I suspect this is a tacit acknowledgement that a strategy of simply talking about how safe cycling actually is –

cycling isn’t as risky as commonly thought, with just one death every 32 million kilometres – that’s over 800 times around the world. Indeed not cycling is more risky than cycling: cyclists on average live two years longer than non-cyclists and
take 15% fewer days off work through illness

– just isn’t going to cut it when it comes to getting people out there on bikes in significant numbers. Statistics about how they are actually going to extend their lives, on the basis of probability, by cycling aren’t really going to make up
anyone’s mind when they are confronted with cycling conditions like those in the video above, ‘numbers’ or otherwise.

The starting point for cycle campaigning should be to make cycling seem safer and more attractive. The numbers will come.

By contrast, we shouldn’t simply endeavour to boost the numbers of people cycling in the hope that, somewhere down the line, cycling will become safer and more attractive.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies directly with the amount
of walking and bicycling. However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities
and countries, and across time periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and
bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people
walking and bicycling.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Countries in Europe with high levels of cycle use tend to be less
risky for cyclists. In Denmark, people cycle over 900 kilometres a year
and it is a far safer country to cycle in than Portugal, where barely 30
km is covered by each person by bike annually.

Clearly, there is a correlation here between distance cycled, or number
of cycling trips, and safety. That much is undeniable. But are we so
clear about the the direction in which the correlation runs? The main
thrust of the CTC argument seems to be based on the assumption that an increase in safety will arise from a greater numbers of cyclists making trips. In their words

Cycling gets safer the more people do it.

I think this is generally true. More people cycling should mean more awareness of cyclists, and so the averaged risk to a given cyclist will probably decrease.

But there is an alternative explanation that could lie behind the
correlation exhibited in that graph, that the CTC don’t seem to focus on. Namely, that more people will cycle when they feel safe. Or, to invert the CTC slogan,

More people cycle when it gets safer.

This gives us two possible interpretations for the data point for the Netherlands in the graph above.

1) Dutch cyclists are safe, because the Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot.

2) The Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot, because they feel (or are) safe.

Likewise, for the UK –

1) British cyclists are not as safe as their Dutch counterparts
because, unlike the Dutch, we do not cycle a lot.

2) The British, as a nation, do not cycle a lot, because they are not
(or do not feel) safe.

Now, you know very well that cyclist death rates in Holland and the UK are practically identical at 22 per billion miles. So the Dutch feel safe and
are killed at the same rate as the Brits, who don’t feel safe.

Interesting, eh?

To be clear, I don’t think these two interpretations of the correlation
are mutually exclusive. There is probably a great deal of interplay
between them. But it is interesting how the second interpretation figures
so little in the conventional explanations of the ‘Safety In Numbers’ effect.

There are now significant numbers of cyclists at peak commuting hours on arterial roads in and out of London – the ‘Superhighways’ seem to have had the effect of concentrating cyclists’ movements on these roads. I suspect that this increase in numbers has indeed led to a decrease in the average cyclist’s exposure to risk. Nevertheless, the road environment doesn’t necessarily feel any safer for a cyclist, simply because of the greater numbers. And I think that is quite important if we are ever going
to get the ‘numbers’ the CTC talk about.

For instance.

Eight cyclists are visible in this short clip, yet this seems (to me, at least) to be a deeply hostile and unpleasant environment to cycle in. All
the regular motorists in this clip probably encounter hundreds of
cyclists on a day-to-day basis, so they are certainly ‘aware’ of them. But the general attitude exhibited seems to be one of dangerous
complacency, rather than consideration. They are used to cyclists – but only as objects they need to get past as quickly as possible.

Now, to be fair, the CTC do stress the need to make the road environment
more welcoming and safe for cyclists. I suspect this is a tacit acknowledgement that a strategy of simply talking about how safe cycling actually is –

cycling isn’t as risky as commonly thought, with just one death every 32 million kilometres – that’s over 800 times around the world. Indeed not cycling is more risky than cycling: cyclists on average live two
years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer days off work through illness

And what is the source of that claim?

– just isn’t going to cut it when it comes to getting people out there on bikes in significant numbers. Statistics about how they are actually
going to extend their lives, on the basis of probability, by cycling
aren’t really going to make up anyone’s mind when they are confronted with cycling conditions like those in the video above, ‘numbers’ or otherwise.

The starting point for cycle campaigning should be to make cycling seem
safer and more attractive. The numbers will come.

By contrast, we shouldn’t simply endeavour to boost the numbers of people cycling in the hope that, somewhere down the line, cycling will become
safer and more attractive.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

False premise:

“Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are
larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood
of collisions with people walking and bicycling.”

It is highly likely that as walkers and cyclists increase in number,
collisions between members of those groups will increase, possibly exponentially. More caution rather than less will be taken. That has
nothing to do with motorists.

This is a very poor report.


swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people
walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists
and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling.
However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level
and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and
the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the
likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears
that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking
and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the
human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people
walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route
to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It seems paradoxical but the more people ride bicycles on our city streets, the less likely they are to be injured in traffic accidents. International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with
a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians.

International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians. And it's not simply because there are
fewer cars on the roads, but because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.

Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can
expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.

"It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from UNSW who address a cycling safety seminar in Sydney, Australia, on September 5. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist falls with increasing rate of
bicycling in a community. And the safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

Experts say the effect is independent of improvements in cycling-friendly laws such as lower speed limits and better infrastructure, such as bike paths. Research has revealed the safety-in-numbers impact for cyclists in Australia, Denmark, the
Netherlands, 14 European countries and 68 Californian cities.

"It's a positive effect but some people are surprised that injury rates don't go up at the same rate of increases in cycling," says Sydney University's Dr Chris Rissel, co-author of a 2008 research report on cycling.

"It appears that motorists adjust their behaviour in the presence of increasing numbers of people bicycling because they expect or experience more people cycling. Also, rising cycling rates mean motorists are more likely to be cyclists, and therefore be
more conscious of, and sympathetic towards, cyclists."

Safety concerns are among the most significant barriers preventing Australians from cycling, including among those who cycle regularly, according to the report, titled Cycling: Getting Australia Moving. Despite this, over 1.68 million adults cycled in
2006, an increase of almost 250,000 since 2001. During this period, Australian capital cities experienced an average 22 percent increase in bicycle journeys to work. The city of Melbourne led with a 42 percent increase, while the city of Sydney lagged
the field with a nine percent increase. 2006 figures reveal that 12,132 Sydneysiders cycle to work.

Dr Rissel says transport authorities should highlight the fun, convenience and health and environmental benefits of cycling, rather than what he views as an undue emphasis on danger and safety messages, which can deter cyclists: "We should create a
cycling friendly environment and accentuate cycling's positives rather than stress negatives with 'safety campaigns' that focus on cyclists without addressing drivers and road conditions. Reminding people of injury rates and risks, to wear helmets and
reflective visible clothes has the unintended effect of reinforcing fears of cycling which discourages people from cycling."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems paradoxical but the more people ride bicycles on our city
streets, the less likely they are to be injured in traffic accidents. International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer
injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians.

Supposition.

International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer
injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians.
And it's not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but
because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely
when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.

Supposition

Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally
with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community
that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.

Sleight of hand. The claim does NOT mean that there will be fewer cyclists killed or injured.

The sleight of hand comes from quoting a ‘likelihood’ for individual cyclists and so avoiding the unwelcome fact that the total number of
incidents will increase.

The ignorant, blinkered, or dim are easily taken in by such subterfuge.

"It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from
UNSW who address a cycling safety seminar in Sydney, Australia, on
September 5. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by
a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And
the safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

And Dr Julie Hatfield had just repeated the same claim. See above for the alternative view.

Experts say the effect is independent of improvements in cycling-friendly laws such as lower speed limits and better infrastructure, such as bike paths. Research has revealed the safety-in-numbers impact for cyclists in Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, 14 European countries and 68 Californian cities.

Dutch cycling deaths have held steady for over 20 years. Someone is bending credulity.

"It's a positive effect but some people are surprised that injury rates
don't go up at the same rate of increases in cycling," says Sydney University's Dr Chris Rissel, co-author of a 2008 research report on cycling.

Note that a ‘rate’ is not the same as total numbers.

UK cycle deaths…85
Dutch cycle deaths…200

UK mileage cycled…3.9 bn
Dutch mileage cycled…9.3bn

UK death rate…22
Dutch death rate…22

The unwelcome message, never mentioned in cycling circles, is that on a
rate basis - otherwise all the rage in the mendacious cycling media -
Holland is no safer than the UK!

"It appears that motorists adjust their behaviour in the presence of increasing numbers of people bicycling because they expect or experience
more people cycling. Also, rising cycling rates mean motorists are more likely to be cyclists, and therefore be more conscious of, and
sympathetic towards, cyclists."

Note that use of the word ‘rate’ yet again…

Safety concerns are among the most significant barriers preventing Australians from cycling, including among those who cycle regularly, according to the report, titled Cycling: Getting Australia Moving.
Despite this, over 1.68 million adults cycled in 2006, an increase of
almost 250,000 since 2001. During this period, Australian capital cities experienced an average 22 percent increase in bicycle journeys to work.
The city of Melbourne led with a 42 percent increase, while the city of Sydney lagged the field with a nine percent increase. 2006 figures reveal that 12,132 Sydneysiders cycle to work.

Bully for Australia.

Dr Rissel says transport authorities should highlight the fun,
convenience and health and environmental benefits of cycling, rather than what he views as an undue emphasis on danger and safety messages, which
can deter cyclists: "We should create a cycling friendly environment and accentuate cycling's positives rather than stress negatives with 'safety campaigns' that focus on cyclists without addressing drivers and road conditions. Reminding people of injury rates and risks, to wear helmets
and reflective visible clothes has the unintended effect of reinforcing
fears of cycling which discourages people from cycling”.

So, lambs to the slaughter, then?

Do you see Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines wearing Hollister or
Superdry or Tommy Hilfiger?They haven’t abandoned their helmets in favour
of Pirelli or Audi caps, and their armoured vehicles aren’t painted in Ukraine’s colours or look like rainbows. They don’t switch their lights on at night.

Any idea why that should be?

Go on, have a think…if you can.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The more people get around by bike, the safer it is, according to the "safety in numbers" rule first popularized by researcher Peter Jacobsen.

This chart from the International Transport Forum [PDF] shows how the safety in numbers effect plays out at the national scale. As you can see, biking is safer in the countries where people bike the most.

There was, however, some variation country to country. The report noted that Korea's cycling fatality rates were greater than what its biking rates would suggest. Researchers speculated that might be due to a rapid recent growth in cycling. Perhaps, they
write, "neither cyclists nor other transport participants have had time to assimilate each other's presence."

Meanwhile, in some nations with high cycling rates, biking has become even safer over time. That was the case in Denmark, where cycling rates have been high but fairly stable for the last decade, but fatality rates have dropped 40 percent during the same
period.

The safety in numbers effect has been observed at the scale of cities too. Recently, for example, bicycle injury rates in Minneapolis have declined as total ridership has risen. The same trend has played out in New York, as cycling has increased while
total injuries and fatalities have not.

Do more people on bikes cause cycling to become safer, or does safer infrastructure attract more people to bike? There's no conclusive evidence either way, but the answer is probably a mix of both. Safer infrastructure entices more people to ride, and
more people riding instill greater awareness on the part of motorists and increase the demand for safer infrastructure.

SEE: https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2015/02/B-jBsAjCQAAn9rR.png

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

The more people get around by bike, the safer it is, according to the
"safety in numbers" rule first popularized by researcher Peter Jacobsen.

This chart from the International Transport Forum [PDF] shows how the
safety in numbers effect plays out at the national scale. As you can see, biking is safer in the countries where people bike the most.

There was, however, some variation country to country. The report noted
that Korea's cycling fatality rates were greater than what its biking
rates would suggest. Researchers speculated that might be due to a rapid recent growth in cycling. Perhaps, they write, "neither cyclists nor
other transport participants have had time to assimilate each other's presence."

Meanwhile, in some nations with high cycling rates, biking has become
even safer over time. That was the case in Denmark, where cycling rates
have been high but fairly stable for the last decade, but fatality rates
have dropped 40 percent during the same period.

And the Danish are explaining this how?

The safety in numbers effect has been observed at the scale of cities
too. Recently, for example, bicycle injury rates in Minneapolis have
declined as total ridership has risen. The same trend has played out in
New York, as cycling has increased while total injuries and fatalities have not.

Do more people on bikes cause cycling to become safer, or does safer infrastructure attract more people to bike? There's no conclusive
evidence either way, but the answer is probably a mix of both. Safer infrastructure entices more people to ride, and more people riding
instill greater awareness on the part of motorists and increase the
demand for safer infrastructure.

SEE: https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2015/02/B-jBsAjCQAAn9rR.png

An uninteresting conflation of apples and oranges.

Whenever did the Netherlands have a cyclist death rate of 10.7 per bn km travelled?

Dutch cycle deaths and bn km travelled have been fairly constant at 200 and 15.5 respectively, giving a rate of over 12.

The UK is currently at a very similar figure, so that part of the chart
needs serious revision.

How much more needs correcting?


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Abstract
That motorists are a lot less likely to hit someone walking or bicycling if more people walk or bicycle surprised researchers. In contrast, the number of car crashes increases proportionally with the number of cars. The evidence of a prevalence effect
implies that injury risk is more than just a matter of physics, and that something occurs with human physiology or psychology.

Safety in Numbers likely occurs because humans have difficulty detecting rare items. That injury risk decreases with more walking and biking creates opportunity for implementing public policies for reducing damage to the climate and improving health.
This non-linear risk also explains why the recent NTSB recommendation for compulsory bicycle helmet laws could increase injury risk.

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/111000

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Abstract
That motorists are a lot less likely to hit someone walking or bicycling
if more people walk or bicycle surprised researchers. In contrast, the
number of car crashes increases proportionally with the number of cars.
The evidence of a prevalence effect implies that injury risk is more than just a matter of physics, and that something occurs with human physiology or psychology.

Safety in Numbers likely occurs because humans have difficulty detecting
rare items. That injury risk decreases with more walking and biking
creates opportunity for implementing public policies for reducing damage
to the climate and improving health. This non-linear risk also explains
why the recent NTSB recommendation for compulsory bicycle helmet laws
could increase injury risk.

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/111000

Anyone care to point up the inconsistency between

“…motorists are a lot less likely to hit someone walking or bicycling if more people walk or bicycle…”

and

“…the number of car crashes increases proportionally with the number of cars…”

and

“… Safety in Numbers likely occurs because humans have difficulty detecting rare items…”

Honestly, Mason, don’t you have any critical faculties at all?

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In road safety, the principle of safety in numbers refers to risks for vulnerable road users. It implies that as the number of cyclists and pedestrians increases their crash risk decreases; or the increase in the number of crashes among these road users
is smaller than would be expected considering the increase in their numbers in traffic. This mechanism has been demonstrated in several studies.

https://swov.nl/en/fact/cyclists-10-what-does-safety-numbers-imply

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

In road safety, the principle of safety in numbers refers to risks for vulnerable road users. It implies that as the number of cyclists and pedestrians increases their crash risk decreases; or the increase in the number of crashes among these road users is smaller than would be
expected considering the increase in their numbers in traffic. This
mechanism has been demonstrated in several studies.

https://swov.nl/en/fact/cyclists-10-what-does-safety-numbers-imply

“ This mechanism has been demonstrated in several studies, but the
magnitude of the found road safety effect considerably differs. Nor is it
clear whether the effect relates to a direct causal relationship [25]”

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The idea of ‘safety in numbers’ for cyclists has been questioned since it was first mooted two decades ago.

Now a three-year study of cycling safety in the city of Oslo, Norway, confirms it is not simply an attractive theory but is actually true – more cyclists equals safer cycling.

“Cycling advocates have long believed in safety in numbers but the important thing has been to understand what is really going on,” Dr Aslak Fyhri, senior research psychologist and lead author of the 72-page report, tells BikeRadar.

Dr. Fyhri’s team surveyed road users and analysed hours of traffic video from Oslo. They wanted to see if the number of dangerous events changed when the numbers of cyclists increased significantly between April and September.

The results are convincing, he says. Car drivers say they become more aware of cyclists and, as the summer months pass, so do pedestrians. Near-misses fall from April to June and video analysis shows conflicts between cars and bicycles decrease between
June and September.

Official safety figures, which distinguish between collisions and single bicycle-only accidents, reflect this safety improvement. “The data for Oslo show a pattern that can be interpreted as a ‘Safety in Numbers’ effect, with a higher share of
collisions relative to single accidents in winter, where there are few cyclists,” the study says. “When spring arrives, and cyclists turn to the streets, the number of accidents increase, but the number of collisions increases less than single
accidents.”

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/heres-why-youre-less-likely-to-be-hit-by-a-car-in-the-summer/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

“When spring arrives, and cyclists turn to the streets, the number of accidents increase”

So the safety, such as it is, is relative rather than absolute. Greater
numbers of cyclists will be killed.

Thank you, Dr Aslak Fyhri.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

The idea of ‘safety in numbers’ for cyclists has been questioned since it was first mooted two decades ago.

Now a three-year study of cycling safety in the city of Oslo, Norway, confirms it is not simply an attractive theory but is actually true –
more cyclists equals safer cycling.

“Cycling advocates have long believed in safety in numbers but the important thing has been to understand what is really going on,” Dr Aslak Fyhri, senior research psychologist and lead author of the 72-page report, tells BikeRadar.

Dr. Fyhri’s team surveyed road users and analysed hours of traffic video from Oslo. They wanted to see if the number of dangerous events changed
when the numbers of cyclists increased significantly between April and September.

The results are convincing, he says. Car drivers say they become more
aware of cyclists and, as the summer months pass, so do pedestrians. Near-misses fall from April to June and video analysis shows conflicts between cars and bicycles decrease between June and September.

Official safety figures, which distinguish between collisions and single bicycle-only accidents, reflect this safety improvement. “The data for
Oslo show a pattern that can be interpreted as a ‘Safety in Numbers’ effect, with a higher share of collisions relative to single accidents in winter, where there are few cyclists,” the study says. “When spring arrives, and cyclists turn to the streets, the number of accidents
increase, but the number of collisions increases less than single accidents.”

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/heres-why-youre-less-likely-to-be-hit-by-a-car-in-the-summer/

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

To help Los Angeles cyclists commute with confidence, Fabian Wagmister, founder of the group Civic Bicycle Commuting (CiBiC), is creating opportunities for “carpooling, but on bikes.” Essentially, this means cycling together in small, tight groups of
10 or 12 — taking up about as much space as a car — and riding right down the middle of a traffic lane. These “pods” of riders coordinate with each other via an app that CiBiC has developed. Participants enter their location, their destination
and their arrival time, and the app groups them together for a collective commute.

The pilot program, funded with a $1 million grant, launches October 1 and will focus mainly on riders in lower-income communities of color. “So many people say they would like to commute by bike, but are afraid to do so,” says Wagmister. “And so we
started thinking, how can we make it safer?”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/07/2023 05:53 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

To help Los Angeles cyclists commute with confidence, Fabian Wagmister, founder of the group Civic Bicycle Commuting (CiBiC), is creating opportunities for “carpooling, but on bikes.” Essentially, this means cycling together in small, tight groups

of 10 or 12 — taking up about as much space as a car — and riding right down the middle of a traffic lane. These “pods” of riders coordinate with each other via an app that CiBiC has developed. Participants enter their location, their destination
and their arrival time, and the app groups them together for a collective commute.

The pilot program, funded with a $1 million grant, launches October 1 and will focus mainly on riders in lower-income communities of color. “So many people say they would like to commute by bike, but are afraid to do so,” says Wagmister. “And so

we started thinking, how can we make it safer?”

Los Angeles?

A guaranteed damp squib (or, as May Sun would put it, a damp squid).

People never seem to take cognisance of the most basic reasons why
travellers use self-directed transport (car, truck, motor-cycle,
chav-cycle).

They don't do it because they want to hang around waiting for others.
They don't want to waste time while travelling. If dead time was what
they wanted, they could travel by bus or train.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The idea of ‘Safety in Numbers’ has been known for years.
Mike Hudson wrote in 1978: "the fact that cyclists’ rights are
more respected in towns where cycling is prevalent suggests
than an increase in the number of cyclists on all roads would
condition car drivers to expect and allow for them."

So what about bikes? Is the risk per cyclist also related to
the amount of cycling? Peter Jacobsen’s research,[1] the Injury
Prevention Editor’s Choice for Volume 9, Issue 3, shows the
answer is a resounding ‘yes!’

Fig 4 compares the risks per cyclist and pedestrian with the
proportion cycling and walking to work in 68 Californian
cities. Risks were estimated by dividing the total number of
reported injuries by the number of people cycling (walking) to
work (used as a proxy for the total amount of cycling/walking).
A strong relationship (remarkably similar to Smeed’s law for
motor vehicles) is evident. Risks per cyclist or pedestrian are
substantially lower in cities where a higher proportion of the
population cycles or walks to work.

Safety in Numbers is not confined to the US. Cycling in
Denmark is generally popular and very safe; fatalities per
million km cycled are about a third of the UK rate. Yet when
distances cycled are plotted against the injury rate per million
km, as in the US, cities where people cycle more have lower
injury rates per unit distance

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/safety_in_numbers2.pdf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In 2015, 102 pedal cyclists were killed, 3,397 seriously injured and 14,978 slightly injured in Great Britain.
Although car occupants account for the greatest number of casualties each year, this is unsurprising as cars
account for 80% of traffic on Britain’s roads. By looking at casualty rates in terms of the number of casualties
per mile travelled, pedal cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’ category, along with pedestrians and
motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per mile travelled than other road users .
It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road rise, the number of cyclist casualties will
rise too. However, research has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument that suggests that this may not be
the case.

The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic environment, the balance of different types of
road users can affect the relative risk of injury to individuals, suggesting that if more people cycle; the roads
will become less risky for cyclists.

The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor
vehicles. Smeed argued that data from 62 countries indicated that the number of road fatalities per vehicle was
lower in countries with more driving4.

This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests that when more cyclists
are on the road, there are fewer collisions, with data indicating that this is the case in The Netherlands, California
and Denmark.

The safety in numbers argument is based on the belief that if there are more cyclists on the road, drivers will
modify their behaviour by taking more notice of cyclists and anticipating their actions. However, it has been
noted that this does suggest that drivers are to blame. Other reasons for the reduced risk of injury to cyclists
when more people are cycling could include drivers being more likely to be a cyclist themselves, having a greater
awareness and understanding of how their driving could affect other road users and cyclists in particular and
that higher rates of cycling lead to a strong political emphasis on making the roads safer to cycle on 3.

The level of motor vehicle traffic is an underpinning cause of injury on the roads, with studies finding that traffic
volume is predictive of the number of cyclist injuries 6 7. Therefore, reducing traffic volume has the potential to
improve cycle safety and road safety in general

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

The idea of ‘Safety in Numbers’ has been known for years.
Mike Hudson wrote in 1978: "the fact that cyclists’ rights are
more respected in towns where cycling is prevalent suggests
than an increase in the number of cyclists on all roads would
condition car drivers to expect and allow for them."

"the fact that cyclists’ rights are more respected in towns”

Is that a fact?

If it is, why isn’t it referenced to the peer-reviewed paper that found
that? Tut tut.

So what about bikes? Is the risk per cyclist also related to
the amount of cycling? Peter Jacobsen’s research,[1] the Injury
Prevention Editor’s Choice for Volume 9, Issue 3, shows the
answer is a resounding ‘yes!’

Fig 4 compares the risks per cyclist and pedestrian with the
proportion cycling and walking to work in 68 Californian
cities. Risks were estimated by dividing the total number of
reported injuries by the number of people cycling (walking) to
work (used as a proxy for the total amount of cycling/walking).
A strong relationship (remarkably similar to Smeed’s law for
motor vehicles) is evident. Risks per cyclist or pedestrian are
substantially lower in cities where a higher proportion of the
population cycles or walks to work.

Para 2 states:

“In 1985, John Adams reviewed Smeed’s work and mar- velled at how well predictions from 1938 data (when the highest V/P was 0.23) fitted data with
V/P of more than 0.5 vehicles per person (Fig 2, drawn on a log-log
scale).[3] Adams argued that to represent real advances in road safety, measures must be shown to provide benefits over and above what would be predicted by Smeed’s law.”

Unfortunately for this demonstration, neither the 1938 data or the year
with the V/P >0.5 are specifically mentioned either on the graphs or in the text. Tut, tut.

Why wasn’t Fig 4 redrawn as a log/linear curve in the manner of Fig 3?

Tut, tut.

Safety in Numbers is not confined to the US. Cycling in
Denmark is generally popular and very safe; fatalities per
million km cycled are about a third of the UK rate. Yet when
distances cycled are plotted against the injury rate per million
km, as in the US, cities where people cycle more have lower
injury rates per unit distance

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/safety_in_numbers2.pdf

What’s missing from this account is any reference to
Box 1, which includes the statement that “if cycling doubles” (which is the cycling world’s wet dream) “total accidents increase by 2^0.4”

This latter quantity works out at 1.32, which means that for an increase of 100% in the number of cyclists, their death rate goes up by 32%.

If there are 3m cyclists on the roads with 100 deaths a year, and that goes
up to 6m cyclists, the new death toll will be 132.

Coyly, this isn’t mentioned in the text.

It also means that ‘Vision Zero’ is a pipe dream.

Still, it’s only a handful, as cyclists say, and every movement needs its martyrs.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

QUOTE

The safety in numbers argument is based on the belief

ENDQUOTE

So, ‘safety in numbers’ is a religion rather than a scientific fact.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

In 2015, 102 pedal cyclists were killed, 3,397 seriously injured and
14,978 slightly injured in Great Britain.
Although car occupants account for the greatest number of casualties each year, this is unsurprising as cars
account for 80% of traffic on Britain’s roads. By looking at casualty
rates in terms of the number of casualties
per mile travelled, pedal cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’ category, along with pedestrians and
motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per mile travelled
than other road users .
It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road
rise, the number of cyclist casualties will
rise too. However, research has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument that suggests that this may not be
the case.

The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic
environment, the balance of different types of
road users can affect the relative risk of injury to individuals,
suggesting that if more people cycle; the roads
will become less risky for cyclists.

The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor
vehicles. Smeed argued that data from 62 countries indicated that the
number of road fatalities per vehicle was
lower in countries with more driving4.

This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests that when more cyclists
are on the road, there are fewer collisions, with data indicating that
this is the case in The Netherlands, California
and Denmark.

The safety in numbers argument is based on the belief that if there are
more cyclists on the road, drivers will
modify their behaviour by taking more notice of cyclists and anticipating their actions. However, it has been
noted that this does suggest that drivers are to blame. Other reasons for
the reduced risk of injury to cyclists
when more people are cycling could include drivers being more likely to
be a cyclist themselves, having a greater
awareness and understanding of how their driving could affect other road users and cyclists in particular and
that higher rates of cycling lead to a strong political emphasis on
making the roads safer to cycle on 3.

The level of motor vehicle traffic is an underpinning cause of injury on
the roads, with studies finding that traffic
volume is predictive of the number of cyclist injuries 6 7. Therefore, reducing traffic volume has the potential to
improve cycle safety and road safety in general

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

The idea of ‘Safety in Numbers’ has been known for years.
Mike Hudson wrote in 1978: "the fact that cyclists’ rights are
more respected in towns where cycling is prevalent suggests
than an increase in the number of cyclists on all roads would
condition car drivers to expect and allow for them."

"the fact that cyclists’ rights are more respected in towns”

Is that a fact?

If it is, why isn’t it referenced to the peer-reviewed paper that found that? Tut tut.

So what about bikes? Is the risk per cyclist also related to
the amount of cycling? Peter Jacobsen’s research,[1] the Injury
Prevention Editor’s Choice for Volume 9, Issue 3, shows the
answer is a resounding ‘yes!’

Fig 4 compares the risks per cyclist and pedestrian with the
proportion cycling and walking to work in 68 Californian
cities. Risks were estimated by dividing the total number of
reported injuries by the number of people cycling (walking) to
work (used as a proxy for the total amount of cycling/walking).
A strong relationship (remarkably similar to Smeed’s law for
motor vehicles) is evident. Risks per cyclist or pedestrian are
substantially lower in cities where a higher proportion of the
population cycles or walks to work.

Para 2 states:

“In 1985, John Adams reviewed Smeed’s work and mar- velled at how well predictions from 1938 data (when the highest V/P was 0.23) fitted data with V/P of more than 0.5 vehicles per person (Fig 2, drawn on a log-log scale).[3] Adams argued that to represent real advances in road safety, measures must be shown to provide benefits over and above what would be predicted by Smeed’s law.”

Unfortunately for this demonstration, neither the 1938 data or the year
with the V/P >0.5 are specifically mentioned either on the graphs or in the text. Tut, tut.

Why wasn’t Fig 4 redrawn as a log/linear curve in the manner of Fig 3?

Tut, tut.

Safety in Numbers is not confined to the US. Cycling in
Denmark is generally popular and very safe; fatalities per
million km cycled are about a third of the UK rate. Yet when
distances cycled are plotted against the injury rate per million
km, as in the US, cities where people cycle more have lower
injury rates per unit distance

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/safety_in_numbers2.pdf

What’s missing from this account is any reference to
Box 1, which includes the statement that “if cycling doubles” (which is the
cycling world’s wet dream) “total accidents increase by 2^0.4”

This latter quantity works out at 1.32, which means that for an increase of 100% in the number of cyclists, their death rate goes up by 32%.

If there are 3m cyclists on the roads with 100 deaths a year, and that goes up to 6m cyclists, the new death toll will be 132.

Coyly, this isn’t mentioned in the text.

It also means that ‘Vision Zero’ is a pipe dream.

Still, it’s only a handful, as cyclists say, and every movement needs its martyrs.

Just thinking about this…

QUOTE
What’s missing from this account is any reference to Box 1, which includes the statement that “if cycling doubles” (which is the cycling world’s wet dream) “total accidents increase by 2^0.4”

This latter quantity works out at 1.32, which means that for an increase of 100% in the number of cyclists, their death rate goes up by 32%.

If there are 3m cyclists on the roads with 100 deaths a year, and that goes
up to 6m cyclists, the new death toll will be 132.
ENDQUOTE

I took the phrase “if cycling doubles total accidents increase by 2^0.4” to mean that accidents would go up by a factor of 2^0.4=1.32, and calculated
the numbers by an example.

But the wording is “total accidents increase by 2^0.4”, which can be taken that the *increase* is given by 2^0.4=1.32.

So in my example, the *increase* is 100x2^0.4=132, which being an
*increase* means that one has to add on the original 100, to give a total
of 232 killed cyclists.

One gets the impression that this is not a well-thought-through article.


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Devon and Cornwall’s annual resident cyclists casualty rate of 17.1 per 100,000 population is 44% lower than the national rate and 31% lower than the South West regional rate.

However, within Devon and Cornwall, Exeter has by far the highest rate of 37.3, which is 54% higher than the overall Peninsula rate. This risk is especially high among affluent middle-aged adult cyclists with families in popular neighborhoods.

Eastern Cornwall has the lowest rate of 11.0, which is 36% lower than the overall Peninsula rate.
RoSPA reports that nationally in 2016, 18,477 cyclists were injured in reported road accidents, including 3,499 who were killed or seriously injured. These figures only include cyclists killed or injured in road accidents that were reported to the police.
Many cyclist casualties are not reported to the police, even when the cyclist is injured badly enough to be taken to hospital.

In 2018, 99 cyclists were killed and 4,106 were seriously injured in Great Britain. Although car occupants account for the greatest number of casualties each year, this is unsurprising as cars account for 80% of traffic on Britain’s roads.

Cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’ category, along with pedestrians and motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per mile travelled than other road users.

It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road rise, the number of cyclist casualties will rise too. However, research has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument that suggests that this may not be the case.

The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic environment, the balance of different types of road users can affect the relative risk of injury to individuals, suggesting that if more people cycle; the roads will become less risky for
cyclists.

The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor vehicles. Smeed argued that data from 62 countries indicated that the number of road fatalities per vehicle was lower in countries with more
driving.

This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests that when more cyclists are on the road, there are fewer collisions, with data indicating that this is the case in The Netherlands, California and Denmark.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

“…RoSPA reports that nationally in 2016…”

“…In 2018…”

“…demonstrated by Smeed in 1949…”

“…Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests…”

So, we can say that no recent data has been included; any conclusions are therefore not well founded. It’s almost as if the cycling world is ignoring last year’s ~15% fall in cyclist deaths. Well, every movement needs its martyrs, even if they’ve been used before.

It’s a bit like ‘climate change’ - take a datum point to measure from, like
the depths of the Little Ice Age, and everything from there is up. Compared
to the start of this interglacial, we’re currently 2.5 or more degrees lower…

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Devon and Cornwall’s annual resident cyclists casualty rate of 17.1 per 100,000 population is 44% lower than the national rate and 31% lower than
the South West regional rate.

However, within Devon and Cornwall, Exeter has by far the highest rate of 37.3, which is 54% higher than the overall Peninsula rate. This risk is especially high among affluent middle-aged adult cyclists with families
in popular neighborhoods.

Moral: don’t live in slums, and stop virtue signalling.

Eastern Cornwall has the lowest rate of 11.0, which is 36% lower than the overall Peninsula rate.

Now tell us what the figures are on a mileage base. Using population
numbers puts the Dutch at 8x the UK rate! And Holland is held up as a safe place to cycle ROFL!

RoSPA reports that nationally in 2016, 18,477 cyclists were injured in reported road accidents, including 3,499 who were killed or seriously injured. These figures only include cyclists killed or injured in road accidents that were reported to the police. Many cyclist casualties are
not reported to the police, even when the cyclist is injured badly enough
to be taken to hospital.

Presumably this number would include those embarrassing cyclist
single-vehicle accidents.

In 2018, 99 cyclists were killed and 4,106 were seriously injured in
Great Britain. Although car occupants account for the greatest number of casualties each year, this is unsurprising as cars account for 80% of
traffic on Britain’s roads.

Official figures are 100 and 4200.

Cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’ category, along with pedestrians and motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per
mile travelled than other road users.

It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road
rise, the number of cyclist casualties will rise too. However, research
has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument that suggests that this may not be the case.

Only on a rate basis. The recent pdf you posted demonstrates, nay
calculates, the increase in death

The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic
environment, the balance of different types of road users can affect the relative risk of injury to individuals, suggesting that if more people
cycle; the roads will become less risky for cyclists.

The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor vehicles. Smeed argued that data from
62 countries indicated that the number of road fatalities per vehicle was lower in countries with more driving.

This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests that when more cyclists are on the road, there are fewer collisions, with data indicating that this is the case in The
Netherlands, California and Denmark.

There’s the Netherlands again! Same per-km rate as the UK, 8x worse on a population basis. Quite why people use the country as an exemplar is inexplicable on a factual basis.

HTH


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

'Safety in Numbers' is the theory that there is a correlation between cycling levels in an area, or country, and the relative safety of cycling - that higher cycling levels correlate with higher safety levels.

A strong form of this theory is that simply increasing cycling levels will increase (relative) safety. Weaker forms simply point out the correlation, without making any strong causal connections.

It is more likely, for instance, that safer environments lead to higher cycling levels, or that higher level policy creates attractive and safe conditions that boost both the numbers of people and their relative safety. Fred Wegman of the Dutch Institute
for Road Safety Research(link is external) -

If there is much cycling in a country, the risk for cyclists is indeed lower. Comparison of statistics of different countries offers conclusive evidence. The risks in countries that have a lot of cycling like the Netherlands and Denmark are (much)
lower than in countries where cycling is a less important mode of transport. The explanation may be twofold. Firstly, there are the expectations of the other road user. If a driver does indeed expect a cyclist on the road, as is the case in the
Netherlands and Denmark, the risk is lower. But a second explanation is conceivable: if there are more cyclists, more safe cycling facilities will be constructed (which in turn make cycling more pleasant). We have sufficient evidence that cycling
facilities (like bicycle tracks) reduce the risks of cycling. Not only do the Nether- lands and Denmark have many cyclists, there are also many cycling facilities.

I do not expect that just a greater number of cyclists will on its own result in a risk reduction for the cyclist. On the other hand, I do expect that more cycling facilities will lead to lower risks. Policy that only focuses on an increase in
cycling and at the same time ignores the construction of more cycling facilities, will not have a positive effect on road safety. Unless, of course this policy also takes care of cyclists only cycling close to one another: in a swarm, school, flock, or
pack of cyclists.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

'Safety in Numbers' is the theory that there is a correlation between
cycling levels in an area, or country, and the relative safety of cycling
- that higher cycling levels correlate with higher safety levels.

“…is a theory…”

A strong form of this theory is that simply increasing cycling levels
will increase (relative) safety. Weaker forms simply point out the correlation, without making any strong causal connections.

So, at best, the issue is not settled.

It is more likely, for instance, that safer environments lead to higher cycling levels, or that higher level policy creates attractive and safe conditions that boost both the numbers of people and their relative
safety. Fred Wegman of the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research(link is external) -

What is “…more likely…”? Compared to what?

If there is much cycling in a country, the risk for cyclists is indeed lower.

It is only lower on a per-person basis; the number of actual deaths will increase (see Jacobsen’s Growth Rule).

Comparison of statistics of different countries offers conclusive evidence.

It is not conclusive. It is merely a correlation, not a causation.

The risks in countries that have a lot of cycling like the Netherlands

and Denmark are (much) lower than in countries where cycling is a less important mode of transport.

Claptrap. The UK and the oft-touted Netherlands have the same death-rate
on a per-km basis, but us 8x worse on a per-head basis. Actual deaths are double those of the UK.

The explanation may be twofold. Firstly, there are the expectations of
the other road user. If a driver does indeed expect a cyclist on the
road, as is the case in the Netherlands and Denmark, the risk is lower.

That needs to be quantified, otherwise it’s just a claim aka hot air.

But a second explanation is conceivable: if there are more cyclists, more safe cycling facilities will be constructed (which in turn make cycling
more pleasant). We have sufficient evidence that cycling facilities (like bicycle tracks) reduce the risks of cycling. Not only do the Nether-
lands and Denmark have many cyclists, there are also many cycling facilities.

Claptrap. The UK and the oft-touted Netherlands have the same death-rate
on a per-km basis, but us 8x worse on a per-head basis. Actual deaths are double those of the UK.

I do not expect that just a greater number of cyclists will on its
own result in a risk reduction for the cyclist. On the other hand, I do expect that more cycling facilities will lead to lower risks. Policy that only focuses on an increase in cycling and at the same time ignores the construction of more cycling facilities, will not have a positive effect
on road safety. Unless, of course this policy also takes care of cyclists only cycling close to one another: in a swarm, school, flock, or pack of cyclists.

Uninteresting speculation.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In 1949 R. J. Smeed reported that per capita road fatality rates tended to be lower in countries with higher rates of motor vehicle ownership.[6] This observation led to Smeed's Law.

In 2003 P. L. Jacobsen[7] compared rates of walking and cycling, in a range of countries, with rates of collisions between motorists and cyclists or walkers. He found an inverse relationship that was hypothesised to be explained by a concept described as
'behavioural adaptation', whereby drivers who are exposed to greater numbers of cyclists on the road begin to drive more safely around them. Other combined modelling[8][9] and empirical evidence suggests that while changes in driver behaviour might still
be one way that collision risk per cyclist declines with greater numbers,[10] the effect can be easily produced through simple spatial processes akin to the biological herding processes described above.[11]

Without considering hypotheses 1 or 3, Jacobsen concluded that "A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle." He described this theory as "safety in numbers."[7]

Safety in numbers is also used to describe the evidence that the number of pedestrians or cyclists correlates inversely with the risk of a motorist colliding with a pedestrian or cyclist. This non-linear relationship was first shown at intersections.[12][
13] It has been confirmed by ecologic data from cities in California and Denmark, and European countries, and time-series data for the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.[7] The number of pedestrians or bicyclists injured increases at a slower rate than
would be expected based on their numbers. That is, more people walk or cycle where the risk to the individual pedestrian or bicyclist is lower.[14][15] A 2002 study into whether pedestrian risk decreased with pedestrian flow, using 1983-86 data from
signalized intersections in a town in Canada, found that in some circumstances pedestrian flow increased where the risk per pedestrian decreased.[16]

After cycling was promoted in Finland, there was a 75% drop in cyclists deaths and the number of trips increased by 72%.[17]

In England, between 2000 and 2008, serious bicycle injuries declined by 12%. Over the same period, the number of bicycle trips made in London doubled.[18][19][20] Motor vehicle traffic decreased by 16%, bicycle use increased by 28% and cyclist injuries
had decreased by 20% in the first year of operation of the London Congestion Charge.[21] In January 2008, the number of cyclists in London being treated in hospitals for serious injuries had increased by 100% in six years. Over the same time, they report,
the number of cyclists had increased by 84%.[22] In York, comparing the periods 1991-93 and 1996–98, the number of bicyclists killed and seriously injured fell by 59%. The share of trips made by bicycle rose from 15% to 18%.[23]

In Germany, between 1975 and 2001, the total number of bicycle trips made in Berlin almost quadrupled. Between 1990 and 2007, the share of trips made by bicycle increased from 5% to 10%. Between 1992 and 2006, the number of serious bicycle injuries
declined by 38%.[24][25] In Germany as a whole, between 1975 and 1998, cyclist fatalities fell by 66% and the percent of trips made by bicycle rose from 8% to 12%.[26]

In America, during the period 1999-2007, the absolute number of cyclists killed or seriously injured decreased by 29% and the amount of cycling in New York city increased by 98%.[27][28][29] In Portland, Oregon, between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of
workers who commuted to work by bicycle rose from 1.1% to 1.8%. By 2008, the proportion has risen to 6.0%; while the number of workers increased by only 36% between 1990 and 2008, the number of workers commuting by bicycle increased 608%. Between 1992
and 2008, the number of bicyclists crossing four bridges into downtown was measured to have increased 369% between 1992 and 2008. During that same period, the number of reported crashes increased by only 14%.[30][31][32]

In Copenhagen, Denmark, between 1995 and 2006, the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured fell by 60%. During the same period, cycling increased by 44% and the percent of people cycling to work increased from 31% to 36%.[33]

In the Netherlands, between 1980 and 2005, and cyclist fatalities decreased by 58% and cycling increased by 45%.[34]

During 7 years of the 1980s, admissions to hospital of cyclists declined by 5% and cycling in Western Australia increased by 82%

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

In 1949 R. J. Smeed reported that per capita road fatality rates tended
to be lower in countries with higher rates of motor vehicle ownership.[6] This observation led to Smeed's Law.

In 2003 P. L. Jacobsen[7] compared rates of walking and cycling, in a
range of countries, with rates of collisions between motorists and
cyclists or walkers. He found an inverse relationship that was
hypothesised to be explained by a concept described as 'behavioural adaptation', whereby drivers who are exposed to greater numbers of
cyclists on the road begin to drive more safely around them. Other
combined modelling[8][9] and empirical evidence suggests that while
changes in driver behaviour might still be one way that collision risk
per cyclist declines with greater numbers,[10] the effect can be easily produced through simple spatial processes akin to the biological herding processes described above.[11]

Without considering hypotheses 1 or 3

What hypotheses? You haven’t mentioned any.

Jacobsen concluded that "A motorist is less likely to collide with a
person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle." He
described this theory as "safety in numbers."[7]

Note that the discussion of ‘collision risk per cyclist’ has now morphed into ‘collisions per motorist’.

Safety in numbers is also used to describe the evidence that the number
of pedestrians or cyclists correlates inversely with the risk of a
motorist colliding with a pedestrian or cyclist. This non-linear
relationship was first shown at intersections.[12][13] It has been
confirmed by ecologic data from cities in California and Denmark, and European countries, and time-series data for the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.[7] The number of pedestrians or bicyclists injured increases
at a slower rate than would be expected based on their numbers. That is,
more people walk or cycle where the risk to the individual pedestrian or bicyclist is lower.[14][15] A 2002 study into whether pedestrian risk decreased with pedestrian flow, using 1983-86 data from signalized intersections in a town in Canada, found that in some circumstances pedestrian flow increased where the risk per pedestrian decreased.[16]

Bingo! At last a frank admission that as the number of cyclists increases,
so does the death toll:

“The number of pedestrians or bicyclists injured increases at a slower rate than would be expected based on their numbers”

It’s Jacobsen’s Growth Rule.

After cycling was promoted in Finland, there was a 75% drop in cyclists deaths and the number of trips increased by 72%.[17]

Unsurprising.

In England, between 2000 and 2008, serious bicycle injuries declined by
12%. Over the same period, the number of bicycle trips made in London doubled.[18][19][20]

Someone is telling porkies…

From official figures:

2000…serious injuries…2643

2008…serious injuries…2450

Decline…9%

Motor vehicle traffic decreased by 16%, bicycle use increased by 28% and cyclist injuries had decreased by 20% in the first year of operation of
the London Congestion Charge.[21] In January 2008, the number of cyclists
in London being treated in hospitals for serious injuries had increased
by 100% in six years. Over the same time, they report, the number of
cyclists had increased by 84%.[22]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make. Somehow you
are conflating country-wide numbers with those in London. You need to
explain why.

In York, comparing the periods 1991-93 and 1996–98, the number of bicyclists killed and seriously injured fell by 59%. The share of trips
made by bicycle rose from 15% to 18%.[23]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

In Germany, between 1975 and 2001, the total number of bicycle trips made
in Berlin almost quadrupled. Between 1990 and 2007, the share of trips
made by bicycle increased from 5% to 10%. Between 1992 and 2006, the
number of serious bicycle injuries declined by 38%.[24][25] In Germany as
a whole, between 1975 and 1998, cyclist fatalities fell by 66% and the percent of trips made by bicycle rose from 8% to 12%.[26]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

In America, during the period 1999-2007, the absolute number of cyclists killed or seriously injured decreased by 29% and the amount of cycling in
New York city increased by 98%.[27][28][29] In Portland, Oregon, between
1990 and 2000, the percentage of workers who commuted to work by bicycle
rose from 1.1% to 1.8%. By 2008, the proportion has risen to 6.0%; while
the number of workers increased by only 36% between 1990 and 2008, the
number of workers commuting by bicycle increased 608%. Between 1992 and
2008, the number of bicyclists crossing four bridges into downtown was measured to have increased 369% between 1992 and 2008. During that same period, the number of reported crashes increased by only 14%.[30][31][32]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

In Copenhagen, Denmark, between 1995 and 2006, the number of cyclists
killed or seriously injured fell by 60%. During the same period, cycling increased by 44% and the percent of people cycling to work increased from 31% to 36%.[33]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

Further, it’s Jacobsen’s Growth Rule broken.

In the Netherlands, between 1980 and 2005, and cyclist fatalities
decreased by 58% and cycling increased by 45%.[34]

It’s Jacobsen’s Growth Rule…broken.

During 7 years of the 1980s, admissions to hospital of cyclists declined
by 5% and cycling in Western Australia increased by 82%

It’s Jacobsen’s Growth Rule…broken.

Seriously, you (Mason) don’t have a clue about what you’re posting, do you. [That’s not a question]

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

There are many myths about cycling and in particular about the safety of cycling. Cycle helmet promotion builds strongly on the fear that cycling is unsafe, but there is clear evidence that people who cycle regularly live longer than those who do not
cycle, with less ill health (BHRF, 1185). How can an activity that enhances health and longevity more than any other be unsafe?

Moreover, there is good evidence that the most important factor in enhancing safety for an individual when cycling in traffic is the number of other people who cycle. When cycle use doubles, the risk of a motorist hitting a cyclist goes down by about a
third. This is the most likely explanation why it is in countries with large cycling populations, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, that risk is lowest.

The benefits of 'Safety in numbers' have now been shown to be valid within and across countries and continents. They are also consistent across time. The studies below are some of the evidence. They demonstrate not only that risk when cycling decreases
the more people who cycle, but also the converse, that anything which leads to fewer people cycling increases risk for those who continue. This could be one reason why cycle helmet promotion and laws have not led to a detectable decrease in risk, for the
most significant outcome has been to discourage cycling.

Road safety professionals concerned about reducing the likelihood of crashes between motorists and cyclists should consider measures that increase cycling.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nswldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

There are many myths about cycling and in particular about the safety of cycling. Cycle helmet promotion builds strongly on the fear that cycling
is unsafe, but there is clear evidence that people who cycle regularly
live longer than those who do not cycle, with less ill health (BHRF,
1185). How can an activity that enhances health and longevity more than
any other be unsafe?

We’ve heard so many claims for bicycling and health benefits, let’s check out the comparison between NL (a cycling paradise) and the hellhole of the unhealthy UK.

Here’s my main point: I am opposed to public health campaigns that focus on cycling, thereby implanting in people’s minds the claimed health benefits
of cycling. What are the facts?

The Dutch cycle more than the UK, 9bn miles to 3.9bn miles per annum, and
have done so for far longer. Note that the population of Holland is only one-fourth of that of the UK (or in the modern vernacular, ‘four times smaller’).

So you would think that all this health-benefit would show up in the statistics. Let’s see…

Keep in mind that the Dutch population at 17.2 million is almost exactly one-quarter of that of the UK at 68 million.

To compare cases per year on a per-head basis, the NL figures have been multiplied by 4.

CVD:
UK…324446
NL…347880
Result: UK healthier for CVD.

IHD:
UK…178985
NL…167020
Result: NL slightly healthier for IHD

Stroke:
UK…20326
NL…26072
Result: UK far healthier for stroke.

Diabetes:
NL…5.4% of adults
UK…3.9% of adults
Result: UK healthier for diabetes

COPD:
NL and UK ~200 deaths per million
Result: indistinguishable

Comment: any health benefits from the amount of cycling by the Dutch over
the Brits seem to be based more on dogma, tropes, and wishful thinking
than fact.

Some data taken from the extensive tabulated data at ehnheart.org; COPD
from statistics.blf.org.uk

Moreover, there is good evidence that the most important factor in
enhancing safety for an individual when cycling in traffic is the number
of other people who cycle. When cycle use doubles, the risk of a motorist hitting a cyclist goes down by about a third.

In real life, the risk of a motorist hitting a cyclist goes up, as there
are more cyclists to hit. What does go down, and is heavily but
misleadingly touted by the cycling media, is that the *individual* risk to
any one cyclist goes down. Data suggests that a doubling in the numbers
cycling results in 60 to 70% *more* deaths and injuries.

This is the most likely explanation why it is in countries with large
cycling populations, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, that risk is lowest.

But on a per-mile basis, the Dutch are no safer that the Brits. On a per
head of population basis, they are 8x worse.

The benefits of 'Safety in numbers' have now been shown to be valid
within and across countries and continents. They are also consistent
across time. The studies below are some of the evidence. They demonstrate
not only that risk when cycling decreases the more people who cycle, but
also the converse, that anything which leads to fewer people cycling increases risk for those who continue. This could be one reason why cycle helmet promotion and laws have not led to a detectable decrease in risk,
for the most significant outcome has been to discourage cycling.

Laughable. An article recently posted by Mason had graphical and tabulated
data of before-and-after KSI data when the helmet law was brought in in Australia, which *clearly* shows a significant fall in numbers in the
category of Deaths and Serious Head Injuries of 40%!

(Safety in Numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling[1]
Review of the Injury Prevention Editor’s Choice article and new examples
from Australian data)

Road safety professionals concerned about reducing the likelihood of
crashes between motorists and cyclists should consider measures that increase cycling.

Road safety professionals concerned about reducing the likelihood of
crashes between motorists and cyclists should consider all the evidence
while simultaneously discounting political correctness and the sort of
wishful thinking that seems so prevalent in the cycling world.


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/07/2023 09:26 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

There are many myths about cycling and in particular about the safety of cycling.

One of them is that it is not necessary for chavs on bikes to watch
where they're going, on the basis that they can just blame someone else
(even the stone wall or the parked vehicle they run into).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Likewise, in response to this question from Assembly Member James Cleverley –

Mr Mayor…. would you concede that a significant but often undervalued element of cycle safety is the herd immunity: the idea that, as increasing numbers of people cycle, the other road users become more used to cyclists, become aware of cyclists in
their day-to-day driving habits and adapt their driving styles to accommodate cyclists?

Boris had this to say –

we need to hear some voices also making the key point that… that cycling is a good thing to do and it is becoming safer. The idea that there is safety in numbers and that you can create a culture of cycling is certainly right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Likewise, in response to this question from Assembly Member James Cleverley –

Mr Mayor…. would you concede that a significant but often undervalued element of cycle safety is the herd immunity: the idea that, as
increasing numbers of people cycle, the other road users become more used
to cyclists, become aware of cyclists in their day-to-day driving habits
and adapt their driving styles to accommodate cyclists?

Boris had this to say –

we need to hear some voices also making the key point that… that cycling is a good thing to do and it is becoming safer. The idea that
there is safety in numbers and that you can create a culture of cycling is certainly right.

Truly a Saul-into-Paul moment, as Simon Mason uses Boris Johnson for
support for his own views.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Likewise, in response to this question from Assembly Member James Cleverley –

Mr Mayor…. would you concede that a significant but often undervalued element of cycle safety is the herd immunity: the idea that, as increasing numbers of people cycle, the other road users become more used to cyclists, become aware of cyclists in

their day-to-day driving habits and adapt their driving styles to accommodate cyclists?

Boris had this to say –

we need to hear some voices also making the key point that… that cycling is a good thing to do and it is becoming safer. The idea that there is safety in numbers and that you can create a culture of cycling is certainly right.

I forgot that Bozo was a keen cyclist before he sold his soul to the far right swivel-eyed loony brigade.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:31:38 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

I forgot that Bozo was a keen cyclist before he sold his soul to the far right swivel-eyed loony brigade.

QUOTE: The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today (Thursday 26 March) confirmed the introduction of the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), and welcomed an increased fund of £65 million to help support London taxi drivers’ transition to
zero emission capable taxis.

Following a positive consultation process, the Ultra Low Emission Zone will launch in central London on 7 September 2020, significantly improving air quality and helping to protect the health of Londoners. It will require vehicles travelling in the
Congestion Charge Zone of central London to meet new emission standards 24 hours a day, seven days a week or pay a daily charge.ENDS

Well now - I think Khan is owed a massive apology by the anti clean air thugs and LTN vandals.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:31:38 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

I forgot that Bozo was a keen cyclist before he sold his soul to the far
right swivel-eyed loony brigade.

QUOTE: The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today (Thursday 26 March) confirmed the introduction of the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), and welcomed an increased fund of £65 million to help support
London taxi drivers’ transition to zero emission capable taxis.

Following a positive consultation process, the Ultra Low Emission Zone
will launch in central London on 7 September 2020, significantly
improving air quality and helping to protect the health of Londoners. It
will require vehicles travelling in the Congestion Charge Zone of central London to meet new emission standards 24 hours a day, seven days a week
or pay a daily charge.ENDS

Well now - I think Khan is owed a massive apology by the anti clean air
thugs and LTN vandals.

One of the claimed main reasons for the ULEZ was to bring clean air to
London, as 4000 Londoners died from asthma each year.

The ULEZ is claimed to have significantly improved air quality.
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of lowered numbers of deaths. Why might that be?

That ULEZ has brought in barrowloads of cash doesn’t seem to be mentioned either. Why might that be?

Was there an ulterior motive for bringing in ULEZ? What could that be?

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Boris Johnson has been mocked after criticising the expansion of a green road scheme he launched when he was London mayor.

The former prime minister the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) was “an essential measure to help improve air quality” when the capital became the first city in the world to introduce it in 2015.

Under the scheme, drivers with cars which have high carbon emissions have to pay a special charge to continue using their vehicles.

But in his weekly Daily Mail column, Johnson savaged current London mayor Sadiq Khan’s plan to expand it to cover the whole of the city from next month.

The move has come in for severe criticism taxi drivers and other small business owners, as well as those with diesel cars.

Publicising his column on Twitter, Johnson described the ULEZ expansion as “an odious, unjustified tax on driving”.

He said it was “nothing to do with air quality, everything to do with Labour mayor Khan’s bankrupt finances”.

It is all a far cry from what he said eight years ago when ULEZ was initially set up on his watch.

Launching the scheme, Johnson said: “The world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone is an essential measure to help improve air quality in our city, protect the health of Londoners, and lengthen our lead as the greatest city on earth.

“Together we can ensure everyone who lives, works in, or visits our city has the cleanest possible air to breathe.”

Johnson’s embarrassing U-turn was quickly picked up on Twitter.

Can this @BorisJohnson
be the same Boris Johnson who, er, launched ULEZ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)